Okay.

I suppose someone had to say it sooner or later the way this primary season is going:

Despite such data points, some Democrats remain bullish that the hill is too steep for Trump to climb.

“Will he have some appeal to working-class Dems in Levittown or Bristol? Sure,” said Ed Rendell, the former Pennsylvania governor and Philadelphia mayor, who won landslides in the suburbs. “For every one he’ll lose 1½ , two Republican women. Trump’s comments like ‘You can’t be a 10 if you’re flat-chested,’ that’ll come back to haunt him. There are probably more ugly women in America than attractive women. People take that stuff personally.”

Who knows. He may be right. It is entirely possible that there are more ugly women in America than attractive women. It is even possible that ugly women have a tribal impulse that compels them to herd together and paw the ground whenever Hillary is threatened.

The thing is that the primary results and exit polls don’t show women to be the delicate, easily offended snowflakes that Hillary and much of her staff think they are. By the same token, a woman who is appalled by a Clinton candidacy and the mewling, condescending way she treats women is hardly going to be so offended by Trump that Clinton becomes viable. It is difficult to believe that there is much more about Trump’s relationship with women that we can know that will offend the average conscience more than what is already known.

Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell says 'there are probably more ugly women in America than attractive women.' https://t.co/q9vxfugMjz

— The Associated Press (@AP) May 18, 2016

"But it's okay," Rendell continued. "We invented the light switch for a reason." https://t.co/5fuHV75GB2

— Joe Cunningham (@JoePCunningham) May 18, 2016